I have heard about nobel prices for literature, physics, economy etc. Is there any Nobel price for "darwinism"? Who got it?

"Darwinism" was part of biology, in case you didn't know. And Nobel Prizes of medicine are often given to biologists. Muller got one if I recall properly. I don't know if he was a strict Darwinist himself, but you wouldn't endorse his views. Same goes for Tinbergen.Anyway, I meant that if you had evidence of you hypothesis, whatever that his, to the same level we have evidence that man descent from fish, you would earn a Nobel Prize.

Quote

Try latest pages on Frontloading's thread or EvC where I started the thred about it on Biological evolution section. I summarized there main ideas of Dacque, Naef and Troll.

Maybe I'll have a look at it, but I would prefer you to expose your own views here.

Quote

That's your argument?

No, that's not an argument.

Quote

When something is published it must be right.

Nope, but at least it tests an hypothesis with the scientific method.

Quote

Once they published in Nature an article that babies faces are similar to those of their fathers, because our predecessors would have killed them otherwise. The Nature was honest enough to publish another article that our predecessor didn't have mirrors.

Whatever you say, Martin.

Quote

And do not please confuse darwinism with theory of evolution (ToE).

You're kidding again right? Who's been confusing Darwinism with the theory of evolution from the beginning?

Quote

Another theory of evolution is Lamarckism, Nomogenesis or professor John Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are all theories of evolution.

I'm talking about the theory of evolution. Not unproven hypothesis or some fantasies of a crank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EvolutionSo, you're an evolutionist Martin? Do you support prescribed evolution or special creation? Even that is unclear.

We have mentioned already mushrooms genera Amanitta. There are very different coloration in it - red, green, white etc... It is hardly believable that such pigments are byproduct of some process and that they concetrate at the cap of the mushroom where they are most visible.````

Why is that unbelievable?

Why should all colorations have to be explained, anyway? If an organism reflects light, it's going to be some color or other. If the color itself isn't relevant to reproductive success, then it's a byproduct of whatever chemicals are near the surface of the organism. If that isn't an appropriate starting point from which to investigate the question, then what is?

Henry

Uh - on second thought, I reckon the coloration is a byproduct of the chemicals near the surface even if it is relevant to reproductive success. But in that case the presenece of those chemicals would be explained by that.

I would say that black and white swans also inhabit the same types of habitat

Bollocks.

Patrick, why didn't you quote my previous sentence either? I quoted there that striking similarity of stripes on tasmanian wolf and african zebra druiker is to be explained via "similar types of habitat". Is it also "bollocks" or what? But this time it would be darwinain "bollocks".

I have no idea why or indeed if the stripes on these various critters are similar. Again, it's a multi-year study to get on top of this. And as soon as a reasonable explanation is found, you'll pipe up with "but why do yellow-bellied gliders have a yellow belly?"; and it's another umpteen years of study to work out if there is some selective advantage or if its a founder effect somewhere or something of that nature.

So I would love to tell you if this is bollocks but I have no idea; on the other hand I know with a very good degree of certainty that the geography (and biogeography) of Europe and Australia are different.

Do you have some difficulty with the statement: "There are some things we (as humans) do not know because we have never invested the resources to find out"?

We have established that black swans exist. At least that's good going.

Now we have to get to "the climate in Australia is different to the climate in Europe."

Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

LOL. Nice one martin. At first, I didn't notice it was you posting.

Now, are you there to add some substance to this thread or just the usual?

Black swans are belligerent little bastards. I visited the Slimbridge Wildfowl Trust long ago and one of them started menacing me and would not leave me alone. He acted like he genuinely wanted to kill me.

Maybe he attacked you because you were wearing T-shirt with "Black swans support darwinism".

Hey, V, why are Black Swans black? Have a theory?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

Yes, it was Marjanovic who checked my Slovak grammar as far as I remember. Knowing a little bit Russian or what he came to conclusion I am Czech. It was really funny.

Poor pharyngulist Marjanovic tried to discuss the issue of coloration at One blog a day where John Davison was present too. Pharyngulist Marjanovic (PZ Meyeres call his sycophants "knowledgeable evolutionists who rip creationists apart with arguments") knowing nothing about red-green canals invented a brand new theory of color perception. According Marjanovic green = white - red.

You know I pointed out that sometimes you percieve color that is not present in spectrum entering the eye. A linguist and knowledgeable evolutionist Marjanovic has had no problem to explain everything ad hoc.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Has anyone else noticed that Martin's broken english seems to come and go, as if by will?

Yes, that's been noticed. In fact that was one of the main pieces of evidence that he was really a hoax on Davison's part. The other thing pointing in that direction was the preposterousness of Davison having followers.

But whoever our little closeted creationist troll really is, he probably really is from the former Czechoslovakia, since he can write Czech. A (sane) poster at Pharyngula who's from the Czech Republic looked it over and it checks out (no pun intended).

So I guess as far as speaking English is concerned, V "has good days and bad days".

Yes, it was Marjanovic who checked my Slovak grammar as far as I remember. Knowing a little bit Russian or what he came to conclusion I am Czech. It was really funny.

Poor pharyngulist Marjanovic tried to discuss the issue of coloration at One blog a day where John Davison was present too. Pharyngulist Marjanovic (PZ Meyeres call his sycophants "knowledgeable evolutionists who rip creationists apart with arguments") knowing nothing about red-green canals invented a brand new theory of color perception. According Marjanovic green = white - red.

You know I pointed out that sometimes you percieve color that is not present in spectrum entering the eye. A linguist and knowledgeable evolutionist Marjanovic has had no problem to explain everything ad hoc.

Hey, V, tell us why Black Swans are black!

You know, since natural selection can't be the reason.

I trust YOUR explanation isn't 'ad hoc'?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

VMartin, I can see that you're logged on. Before anything else, can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Suppose there is a bird who has learned to avoid butterflies having a specific pattern. There is then a selective advantage to looking like the poisonous butterfly. This has been studied quite a lot.

I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet. Wasps have many bird's predators who eat them.

One of them is bird Merops apiaster living in Europe - Bee eater:

Quote

Just as the name suggests, bee-eaters predominantly eat insects, especially bees, wasps and hornets, which are caught in the air by sorties from an open perch.

It is only a (neo)darwinian pressuposition that a moth mimicing wasps are protected having wasp coloration. Probably no serious research has been done yet. If it has been done let me notice.

---

Btw. I have read in a text-book published during communism (socialism you know) that birds are able to tell apart a hornet moth and a wasp very well - but there was no resource of the claim. But Frankfurter school of structuralism claims the same - the predators can distuinguish between mimic and model.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet.

Have an alternate explanation, V?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

I am not sure "it has been studied quite a lot". According (neo)darwinsim wasps have aposemtic coloration to warn and deter predators. Hornet moth (Aegeria apiformis) looks and buzz like a wasp. One would think that the moth has some survival advantage looking like a wasp. But probably no scientist has made a research to prove it yet

Is that a criticism Martin?Because, you know, there is an hypothesis to be tested. And what do you propose: no hypothesis and no verification.You're not familiar with the scientific method, are you Martin?

Quote

I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

Translated : I'm here to bring every possible fact that has not been studied yet and claim that Darwinism can't explain it. But don't expect me to propose anything. Damn, Darwinism is doomed. :O

Can you please tell us why swans are the color they are? Or mushrooms, for that matter?

Because you see, you complain a lot about how 'Darwinists' can't explain these things, but you have yet to tell us what explanation you have. In the absence of a good alternate explanation, your bitching doesn't amount to much.

I am here not on a trial, you know. I am trying to infirm some darwinian explanation about coloration using facts.

So you have no explanation? Figures.

It doesnt bother you that you endlessly bitch about the imagined shortcomings of 'Darwinism', and you can't offer ANY alternatives?

Can you offer ANYTHING except complaints?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Translated : I'm here to bring every possible fact that has not been studied yet and claim that Darwinism can't explain it. But don't expect me to propose anything.

It has been studied (see coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. Don't you agree with the research's conclusions or what?) But often the result doesn't support (neo)darwinistic explanation of coloration (fruiting bodies of mushrooms, coloration of swans, "warning" coloration of hornet moth) so maybe nobody published them in mainstream resources. It was Alan Fox who noticed me that a research showed that "eye spots" on butterflies wings has no effect to predators. Published in serious resource.

Summa: You are claiming something about coloration having no scientific support for it. An idea of "survival advantage" of coloration precedes every serious research. It's a dogma. Your explanation is taken for granted. It is not very scientific, don't you think so? Your claim is - we haven't studied it deeply yet but our explanation is correct neverthenless.But maybe not.

This study thus provides no support that marginal eyespot patterns can act as an effective deflection mechanism to avoid lizard or avian predation.

Summa: You are claiming something about coloration having no scientific support for it. An idea of "survival advantage" of coloration precedes every serious research. It's a dogma. Your explanation is taken for granted. It is not very scientific, don't you think so? Your claim is - we haven't studied it deeply yet but our explanation is correct neverthenless.But maybe not.

VMartin: I WILL ASK AGAIN.

You endlessly complain about 'Darwinism', but your whole strategy is nothing more than finding issues that haven't been resolved yet and crowing that 'Darwinism' has no answer.

And yet, YOU HAVE OFFERED NO HYPOTHESIS OR ALTERNATE EXPLANATION YOURSELF. YOU HAVE OFFERED NOTHING.

Martin, there is more to science than unproductive bitching.

Do you or do you not have an explanation for the coloration of swans and mushrooms that is better than 'Darwinism' provides??

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

One of these approaches leads to progress and an increase in our knowledge. The other approach (yours) leads to stupefaction.

I see. Criticising the theory of "survival advantage" of coloration leads to stupefaction. Abidance in neodarwinism even if it obviously contadicts facts leads to progress.

What do you have to offer that will lead to 'progress', V?

ANYTHING?

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

I see. Criticising the theory of "survival advantage" of coloration leads to stupefaction. Abidance in neodarwinism even if it obviously contadicts facts leads to progress.

No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".

Do you have any hypothesis about coloration in fungi? I haven't heard it yet. Is it testable? Are you planning to test it?

If the answer to those questions is no, or, even worse, if you ignore them again, we can only conclude that you are a twit. Prove that you are not a twit and give us your testable hypotheses, please.

Thanks in advance for ignoring this again.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

No. Criticism is valid. But only if it leads to alternative hypotheses that can be tested, and then to testing of those hypotheses. That is known as "constructive criticism". What you are doing is known as "bitching".

Sorry, but your arguments remind me exactly of those used by communists. They also accepted ctriticism but only if it was constructive . Unbelievable. They used to say "Criticism yes, but only constructive one". You have to add your own solution of the problem, otherwise you was a saboteur. Consequently criticism was almost impossible.

It is interesting that "sciences" like marxism or (neo)darwinism require from their critics to be constructive. Do you think it is normal procedure also in the area of real sciences like physics, math? Do not criticise discrepancies in the Maxwell electromagnetic theory! Yet physicists made computations (before 1900) and came to conclusions that this theory is unable to explain some phenomena.It was Max Planck who gave explanation of them. According you physiscists before Planck were "bitching".

--------------I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin